film industry – China Digital Times (CDT)http://chinadigitaltimes.net
Covering China from CyberspaceSat, 10 Dec 2016 00:21:31 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.6.135652790China Digital Timeshttp://chinadigitaltimes.net/wp-content/themes/cdt/images/feedlogo.pnghttp://chinadigitaltimes.net
Wanda to Invest Billions in “All Six” Hollywood Studioshttp://chinadigitaltimes.net/2016/11/wanda-invest-billions-six-hollywood-studios/
Sun, 06 Nov 2016 04:41:24 +0000http://chinadigitaltimes.net/?p=197540Wang Jianlin, the chairman of Chinese real estate and investment firm Dalian Wanda Group, has unveiled plans to invest billions of dollars in all six of Hollywood’s major film studios as he seeks to transform the conglomerate into a global entertainment giant. Widely known across China for its massive commercial plazas, Wanda has in recent years acquired both AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc. as well as Legendary Entertainment, making it one of the largest cinema chain operators in the world. This week, it was announced that Wanda Group had purchased Dick Clark Productions, which owns the rights to classic American TV fare such as the Golden Globes awards, the American Music Awards, the Miss America pageant, and New Years Rockin Eve in Times Square. Patrick Brzeski at The Hollywood Reporter spoke to Wang about his ventures in the entertainment industry and his ambition to acquire a major Hollywood studio:

“I wanted to acquire one of the big six, but whether we can is a different story — it’s uncertain,” Wang tells me matter-of-factly one October afternoon in Beijing as we sit in a huge boardroom on the 20th floor of his corporate headquarters. […]

[…] “I might as well start from wherever I can, such as through investment with all six,” he says, bluntly outlining his strategy. “We will continue to work on a potential acquisition. But it won’t hurt to start by doing what we can. Participating via investment seems like a wise choice for the time being.”

[…] Wang, with an estimated personal net worth of $32.6 billion, says he’s pleased with Wanda’s progress on the exhibition end of the business (with chains on four continents, Wanda controls more movie screens than any other company in the world — by far), but “all upstream, high-end content production is monopolized by American companies,” so he’s eager to invest or acquire his way to higher capacity.

[…] Since 2010, one of the Chinese government’s core policy goals has been to cultivate an international soft-power footprint to match its growing economic might. Many observers have noted how canny Wang has been in riding the currents of this push to gain domestic support for his overseas expansion. But those closer to the industry are skeptical of the notion that Wanda is motivated, or would ever be foolish enough, to try to force anything resembling Chinese propaganda upon the U.S. audience.

[…] Wang has begun to adjust his international messaging, though — however slightly. While he used to speak more for the home crowd — with remarks suggesting that Wanda’s overseas acquisitions would somehow amplify China’s international voice — he recently has taken to insisting, as he tells me, that nothing more than “a pure commercial intent” is behind Wanda’s U.S. purchases. Maintaining this geopolitical balancing act will be a consistent challenge for his conglomerate. [Source]

[…] Wanda and the Qingdao municipal government have established a major incentive program to lure movie and TV production to the 408-acre Qingdao Movie Metropolis.

Billed as an effort to “bridge the entertainment capitals of the world,” the program will provide a 40 percent rebate on certain production spending in Qingdao, which is about 450 miles north of Shanghai and is the site of Wanda Studios, still under construction. Scheduled to fully open in 2018, Wanda Studios will feature 30 advanced soundstages, including the world’s largest at over 107,000 square feet; an underwater stage; and a 221-acre back lot.

The rebate on each film or television production will be limited to $18 million. The total amount available to disperse will be $150 million annually. There will be three classifications of rebate productions, according to Wanda, and only one of those would require Chinese cultural elements, Chinese actors and Chinese investors — films classified by the Chinese government as co-productions that are not subject to import limits. […]

[…] Mr. Wang, a spry former military officer who is said to be China’s richest man, said he hoped that an additional $3 billion in Qingdao amenities — “international hospitals, international schools, yacht clubs, hotels, shopping” — would make American stars and marquee directors more willing to spend months at a time working there. “Like going on a vacation” is how he described it.

[…] If successful, the rebates could shift the global movie incentives game, in which Hollywood has moved production to locales like Canada, Romania and New Zealand. Legendary Entertainment has plans to film at least two movies under the program, including a sequel to “Pacific Rim.” [Source]

The idea that Wang might be able to export Communist dogma to Hollywood, however, seems fanciful. The most successful Chinese movies tend to be harmless melodramas and martial arts films. So far, this year’s biggest box office success is a comedy about a mermaid assassin who falls in love with the greedy real estate developer she was sent to kill. On those rare occasions when Chinese filmmakers dabble in propaganda, the films have invariably failed (unless propped up by box office fraud).

Indeed, even on their home turf, Chinese films are no competition for Hollywood, which accounted for nearly 40 percent of China’s box office receipts in 2015 despite rampant piracy and strict limits on the number of foreign films. Wang has openly acknowledged that part of his goal is to obtain U.S. technology and know-how in order to improve Chinese filmmaking. He has little incentive to transform a U.S. studio into a facsimile of its Chinese peers.

A bigger concern is self-censorship. In recent years, Hollywood studios have become adept at making — or at least, editing — films that can get past China’s censors. Some have gone further and rewritten storylines that might raise hackles in Beijing, as when MGM decided to change Chinese villains into North Korean ones in a clumsy 2011 remake of “Red Dawn.” A Chinese-owned studio would no doubt be at least as conscientious about the Party’s sensitivities, if not more so.

Fortunately, the impact would probably be limited. Since the 1940s, Hollywood’s studio system has given way to a blossoming of independent production companies, distribution channels and exhibition formats that give an independent-minded filmmaker many options. A Wang-owned studio could still pass on controversial projects, of course. But shareholders and audiences would look askance if management repeatedly missed out on successful films, and at least some filmmakers and talents would look elsewhere if Wanda developed a reputation for asserting a political agenda. Meanwhile, the proliferation of production houses — not just indies, but major companies such as Amazon and Netflix — means that U.S. viewers aren’t likely to be starved for choice. [Source]

In an interview with CNN Money last month, Wang said the lawmakers were “over-worried,” and argued that any change to Hollywood content was a result of U.S. studios adding local elements to court the growing Chinese movie market — rather than private Chinese companies actively exerting influence within the U.S.

While he’s known for his outspokenness, insiders expect Wang’s speech Monday to be shaded by a new concern for public relations. “Wang is more persistent than most people,” a Wanda deputy told THR, asking not to be named because they weren’t permitted to speak on behalf of the company. “There is a Chinese saying ‘when you hit the yellow river, you go back.’ But the chairman says ‘build a bridge and cross it.'”

The pace of Wanda’s deal-making shows no sign of slowing down. In late September, Wanda announced a strategic marketing and co-financing partnership with Sony Pictures Entertainment — Wang also told Reuters in September that he intends to invest in productions from all six of the U.S. studios.

The Sony deal was followed by news that Wanda is holding preliminary talks to purchase Dick Clark Productions, the company behind the Golden Globe Awards, American Music Awards and Billboard Music Awards — the price tag is reportedly in the $1 billion range. [Source]

]]>197540Ai Xiaoming on Idealism and Totalitarianismhttp://chinadigitaltimes.net/2016/09/ai-xiaoming-didnt-realize-totalitarian-society/
Mon, 12 Sep 2016 04:46:30 +0000http://chinadigitaltimes.net/?p=196637As part of “Talking About China,” his series of interviews with artists, activists, and intellectuals, Ian Johnson talks to filmmaker Ai Xiaoming for the New York Review of Books. Ai’s work includes documentaries about Taishi village and, most recently, about Jiabiangou, a labor camp where thousands died during the Great Leap Forward. When Johnson asked Ai about her initial idealism that led her to work with film as a medium to change China, she responded: “I had a strong urge to change society, but now that I think back on it, that was childish. It was infantile. It was naïve. I didn’t realize how totalitarian society was, such barbarism”:

When did you lose that initial idealism?

At the start, the Hu-Wen administration [of Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao, which came to power in 2002] brought some illusions of hope, but especially after 2008 this weiwen [stability maintenance] system gradually took shape. It concentrates power in the government’s hand…

Another thing is that in the past perhaps I believed in the goodness of human nature. I believe this is naïve. Actually, human nature in this totalitarian society has become very vile. This power has changed Chinese people’s psychological makeup. Most people, very many people, are really terrible; they’re afraid of losing things. I don’t mean ordinary people. In fact, ordinary people are often quite clear about the system. I mean, a lot of people in universities, a lot of intellectuals, they know. But the pressure is so great. A lot of people don’t want to sacrifice because being inside the system has a lot of advantages. Why would they want to give up such a comfortable life?

Where will change come from?

I don’t have an easy answer. I just think we shouldn’t underestimate this barbaric totalitarianism. We shouldn’t underestimate how it has corroded people’s hearts. Because this people’s character, having lived under this system for so long, has become weak, and become powerless. [Source]

Social and entertainment news must be dominated by mainstream ideologies and “positive energy”, the official Xinhua news agency said late on Monday, citing the State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television (SAPPRFT).

News content should not make improper jokes, defile classics, or “express overt admiration for Western lifestyles”, the regulator said in a circular, according to Xinhua.

“They should also avoid putting stars, billionaires or Internet celebrities on pedestals”, and not advocate overnight fame or hype family disputes, Xinhua said.

China’s legislature this week is also reviewing a draft law that would require film industry workers to maintain excellent “moral integrity”, after recent cases in which celebrities had been arrested for drug offences and prostitution, Xinhua said in a separate report. [Source]

Using big-name stars, especially fresh-faced idols, is usually considered the best bet by investors hoping for ratings or box-office success, which drives up the price of celebrities. The Chinese actress Fan Bingbing was recently named as the world’s fifth best-paid actress by Forbes, with $17 million over the past year, a number that takes into account all the star’s revenues.

The media agency said it would lead industry associations and major TV and film producers to map out a “self-disciplinary convention” in order to crack down on exorbitant star pay. TV stations are now not allowed to decide on the licensing price of TV dramas they plan to buy based on big-name actors in the show, or ask the show to feature any specific stars.

Film and TV producers in China have been complaining for years about high actor fees, which they say take up too much of the production budget. Industry associations also called for action. Yet money has been flooding into the film industry, which has an annual growth rate of 30%, and this is a huge boost for talent pay. [Source]

News organisations must also set up an performance review mechanism that will monitor the idealogical orientation of their work to help “strengthen restrictions, promote the good and eliminate the bad”.

Those news organisation that are found to be violating the regulations will be punished.

Penalties could include public criticism, the suspension of programmes and even the revoking of the organisation’s production licence, the notice said.

The announcement was made as the National People’s Congress Standing Committee is reviewing a draft law on the film industry to ensure that those who that work in it will strive for “excellence in both professional skills and moral integrity” while maintaining a positive public image. [Source]

China’s box office is expected to surpass North America’s within the next three years. This week’s review process at the National People’s Congress Standing Committee, which runs from Monday to Saturday, provides a sneak peek of the new rulebook likely to govern the world’s soon-to-be-largest movie market. The topics addressed range from censorship policy to market access for foreign films to how to handle artists “tainted” by drug and prostitution scandals.

Among the proposed guidelines made public Monday by state-run news agency Xinhua was a rule requiring distributors to ensure that local Chinese films make up at least two-thirds of total run time on Chinese screens. China already limits revenue-sharing foreign film imports to just 34 titles per year under a trade agreement with the U.S. That deal is set to expire at the end of this year, and the additional limit would seem to ensure that Chinese movies dominate market share regardless of whether the quota is lifted, relaxed or renewed. In recent years, it’s been understood that China’s regulators have aimed to secure at least 55 percent of local box office for Chinese films.

The draft law also includes provisions designed to crack down on box-office fraud, stating that “film distribution companies and cinemas should not fabricate movie ticket sales or engage in improper methods,” according to Xinhua. In 2015 and 2016, several local production companies and distributors were caught gaming China’s box office by mass-buying tickets to their own movies. The tactic was used to create the impression of a hit for marketing gain, or to manipulate China’s hot financial markets. Under the new law, companies engaged in such practices could be fined up to 500,000 yuan ($75,000), hit with business suspensions or outright banned, Xinhua said. […] [Source]

The National People’s Congress Standing Committee is reviewing a draft law on the film industry to ensure that those who work in it strive for “excellence in both professional skills and moral integrity” while maintaining a positive public image.

[…] The move comes after the high-profile arrests of various celebrities for drugs and soliciting prostitutes, including Li Dai­mo, Zhang Mo and Jaycee Chan, son of kung fu star Jackie Chan.

[…] As lawmakers reviewed the draft law, the media watchdog announced that it had set up a professional ethics committee to “guide organisations and people in the media to practice core socialist values”, Xinhua reported, adding that productions involving “tainted artists” would be ineligible for industry awards.

Commenting on the draft bill, Qian Wei, a cultural industry researcher at Shanghai’s East China University of Political Science and Law, said the legislation was a meaningful move to hold celebrities to account for their actions, but he had doubts about how it would be enforced. [Source]

The proposed law also takes aim at a booming Chinese postproduction business that helps Hollywood churn out films more cheaply with local labor. Chinese companies will not be able work on foreign films that could “harm national dignity and interest of China, cause social instability, or hurt the national feeling.” Now that Chinese investors own Hollywood studios and cinema chains, the draft law could potentially hinder the global film-production process.

The Chinese Communist Party has long used the arts to promote socialist values. Chairman Mao Zedong’s wife Jiang Qing, an actress, directed revolutionary ballets and operas. Peng Liyuan, the country’s current First Lady, was for many years far more famous than her husband Xi Jinping because of the patriotic fare she sang as a member of the People’s Liberation Army’s entertainment troupe. In 2014, President Xi decried artists who “are salacious, indulge in kitsch, are of low taste and have gradually turned their work into cash cows, or into ecstasy pills for sensual stimulation.”

[…] Monday’s meeting in Beijing was dedicated to encouraging innovation in China’s film world. But can communist apparatchiks deliver more than a commercially minded movie industry? Xi has grand ambitions for China’s culture. “Fine-art works,” China’s President has said, “should be like sunshine from blue sky and breeze in spring that will inspire minds, warm hearts, cultivate taste and clean up undesirable work styles.” That’s a lot to ask of any film, and recent efforts to inject communist values into Chinese movies have underwhelmed at the box office. “The government gets in the way at every step in China,” says Cain, of a film industry beholden to censorship and other official limits. “Your overriding concern is: ‘Am I going to be O.K.?’ You’re serving a taskmaster that trumps the audience. That doesn’t tend to make for great films.” [Source]

CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR — MAY
An incredibly prevalent product placement that may have escaped most people’s notice made it into Marvel’s latest superhero team-up. Tony Stark (and a few other Avengers) switched from LG phones to a brand called Vivo. (See this swanky commercial spot the company landed.) If you haven’t heard of it, that’s because Vivo phones aren’t available stateside—and they’re certainly not something a billionaire tech wiz would use. As Sascha Segan of PC Magazine explained to Geek.com:

Vivo is a cheap Chinese phone brand, which does not sell any products in the U.S. It’s part of a larger company called BBK, which has three brands, Oppo, Vivo, and OnePlus. Oppo is the high-end brand, Vivo is the lower-end brand, and OnePlus is the geeky-culty brand.

Even if Tony started using that phone just for fun and somehow convinced the other Avengers to follow suit, Segan says there’s zero chance the American government would let Tony—who is very much a collaborator in this movie—“use phones from an off-brand Chinese phone manufacturer, especially after the huge controversies around Huawei and ZTE and whether their phones are full of backdoors for the Chinese government.” No one ever said product placements were graceful, but they don’t usually come with quite so many plot holes.

Michael Berry is a Professor of Asian Languages & Cultures at UCLA. He is the author of several books on Chinese film and literature, such as “Speaking in Images” and “A History of Pain,” and the translator of several novels, including “To Live” and “The Song of Everlasting Sorrow.” He is currently completing a book on the Chinese film industry, tentatively entitled Chinese Cinema with Hollywood Characteristics. He recently answered some questions from CDT about the increasingly powerful relationship between Hollywood and China, the logistics of co-production, and the resulting influence on the film industry in both countries. He notes how much this relationship has changed from just a decade ago, when China was an “afterthought” to Hollywood producers. “Today the two industries are so intricately intertwined that one cannot exist without the other,” he says.

China Digital Times: Domestic Chinese films have had little success attracting an international audience, and Beijing is presumably eager to use its burgeoning domestic film industry as a vehicle for soft power. What types of films are the majority of Chinese film-goers spending on? Why has there been such little foreign appeal for Chinese film productions? Is there any indication that Chinese producers are likely to see international demand grow?

Michael Berry: The Chinese film industry has seen exponential growth over the past several years. In 2010 the Chinese box office grew 61 percent to $1.47 billion, which already represented 61% growth over the previous year, but by 2015 box office receipts in China had reached $11 billion USD. In 2015 an average of 15 new screens were added per day in China, and 2016 estimates are in the neighborhood of 22 screens per day. With this kind of growth, Chinese audiences are spending and spending big on a variety of film experiences. The leading genres at the Chinese box office tend to be action-adventure films, historical fantasy films, romantic comedies, and action comedies. Two of the most recent blockbuster films in China “The Mermaid” and “Monster Hunt” are both good examples of the action/fantasy-comedy genre. Other smaller budget films that depict contemporary Chinese urban lifestyles, like the “Tiny Times” series, have also performed well.

In terms of foreign films, the quota system means that most international studios who gain access to the Chinese market will not take a chance on small budget indies, experimental films, or smaller productions. With only 34 slots per year, most studios stick with big budget commercial fare in the Chinese market. This means that the Hollywood (and other international) films that are distributed in China and do well with Chinese audiences tend to be big-budget spectacle films and A-list Blockbusters. These include action franchises like the “Transformers” series and superhero films “Iron Man” and “The Avengers.”

This has led to a somewhat unbalanced market in China. Whereas big budget studio films dominate box offices all over the world, in the Chinese market there is even less space devoted to smaller art house films. This is the result of a combination of factors, including the “side-effects” of the quota system, theatrical exhibition trends, audience tastes, and a lack of state support for independent films.

The reason for the lack of foreign interest in Chinese film productions is a tough nut to crack. I think a lot of people in the industry had hoped that the phenomenal success of “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” in international markets would have been the beginning of a new trend. But sixteen years later, “Crouching Tiger” still holds the box office record for the highest grossing foreign language film in U.S. box office history. No other Chinese-language film has been able to “crack the code” for producing another Chinese global blockbuster, although there have been many attempts. By contrast, Hollywood has been much more successful when it comes to producing films that play well to global audiences both east and west.

Of course this is a complex questions that gets into audience tastes, production quality of individual films, etc. but there is also the simple question of the “chicken and the egg”—are foreign audiences simply not interested in Chinese film or have foreign distribution companies simply already decided that foreign audiences aren’t interested and therefore fail to give those films the proper support when it comes to marketing, access to distribution and exhibition channels? To what degree are audience tastes shaping the market and to what degree are the existing infrastructures that have been developed and tweaked over several decades determining the rules of the game?

Future growth trends are always hard to predict. However, with the Chinese box office set to eclipse the U.S. box office sometime in 2017, there are many changes afoot that will inevitably make Chinese cinema more visible internationally. The Chinese firm Wanda not only owns AMC theaters, but with its 2016 acquisition of the Carmine Cinemas franchise, Wanda is now in control of the single largest movie theater chain in the world. With the rise of the China market, we don’t have to wait for “Chinese cinema to come to Hollywood” because “Hollywood is already going to China.” This can be seen not only through the proliferation of Sino-Hollywood co-productions, but also through the casting of Chinese A-listers in mainstream Hollywood films. At the same time, Chinese cinema is coming to Hollywood in other ways, with Chinese studios like Huayi Brothers, Wanda, and Alibaba heavily investing in Hollywood films.CDT: More and more movies are being co-produced by U.S. and Chinese partners. Why are foreign studios increasingly involved in production deals with their Chinese counterparts? Is it just a fast track into the Chinese market, or are there other advantages?

MB: I would attribute the initial rise of U.S.-Chinese co-productions to the Chinese quota system. With the second largest film market in the world, the Chinese film market continues to enjoy unprecedented growth. However, the quota system, which dictates how many international films have access to theatrical release in China, has inhibited Hollywood’s access. As of 2016, the quota is 34 foreign films per year (which is up from 20, and 10 before that). With such a limited window for official foreign studios to gain access to the Chinese market, many studios began to explore alternative production models and the co-production has emerged as one of the most popular options, as co-production status provides a means for studios to circumvent the quota system.

CDT: What are the requirements for official co-production status?

MB: There have been many types of co-productions over the years that take on many forms; there are also different requirements for these different types of co-productions. Some qualify as “official co-productions” while others take on a more ambiguous identity. In a general sense, any film in which there is funding and collaboration between China and America are often referred to as “Sino-American co-productions” (Zhong Mei hepai pian). In this broad sense, some of the different categories might include: 1) Hollywood films that utilize Chinese studio space or exterior locations for shooting films that are thematically not related to China, (such as “Kill Bill” or “The Kite Runner”); 2) Hollywood films that incorporate Chinese themes, locations, and actors into the film in a more central way (“Forbidden Kingdom,” “The Karate Kid,” etc.); 3) Hollywood films that incorporate some token Chinese elements or supporting actors as a means to win “co-production status” (such as “Iron Man 3”); 4) Hollywood investing in films that otherwise look and feel like local Chinese films. These essentially function as a form of investment in the local Chinese film industry.

In 2004 the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television (SARFT) [since renamed as the State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television] released a set of guidelines on co-productions, which outlined three types: 1) films in which investment and production are jointly handled by both sides; 2) Assisted productions in which foreign studios provide investment and their Chinese partners provide support in terms of equipment, locations and crew; and 3) Commissioned productions in which foreign studios commission their Chinese partners to produce content in China on their behalf. Over time, however, there has been a great deal of fluidity, ambiguity, and controversy as to what films qualify as a “co-production.” In some cases, films have been known to shift their status during the course of the production process, such as Ang Lee’s “Lust Caution,” which began as a co-production, lost it’s co-production status and moved shooting from Shanghai to Southeast Asia, and then was belatedly re-classified as a co-production status upon distribution. Other films such as “Looper,” “The Expendables 2,” and “Cloud Atlas” have also generated controversy in China when it comes to their “co-production” status.

One leading Chinese film importer I spoke with called the whole concept of the Sino-U.S. co-productions a “fake concept,” or a “pseudo-idea” due to the impossibility of finding a story that can truly work on both sides. He felt that due to a lack of shared history, each side is forced to compromise too heavily and therefore the very notion is flawed. But I think it is important to understand while a lot of people throw around the concept of Sino-U.S. or Sino-foreign co-productions, there are actually many types of collaboration happening between the Chinese film industry and international film companies. These collaborations take on many forms and official “co-productions” are just one facet of a much larger and more complex picture.

CDT: What’s the relationship between official co-production status and quota exemption?

MB: Of the three categories of co-production I outlined above as defined by SARFT, only the first category of co-productions, that is joint productions where both sides contribute investment and production support, qualify for quota exemption. If a film officially qualifies as a co-production it does not count among the 34 foreign films being distributed that year. This allows foreign studios and production companies to gain more access to the China market. For instance if 20th Century Fox has four films commercially distributed in China during a given year, but then also has two co-productions with Chinese studios, they can have a total of six films getting access to the China market. There are also differences in terms of how revenue sharing works and how box office profits are split, depending on whether a film is an import or a co-production. But at the same time, there is still a lot of tension between the logic of the free market and the political rules that are in place. Film exhibiters in China for instance would love to open up or do away with the quota system because of the need for more foreign content to fill their theaters.

MB: I have heard talk from some industry insiders that China is planning on allowing more foreign films to market. While the whims of the party can be unpredictable, the general trend is certainly towards expansion. As more theaters and screens go up in China, there is an increasing demand for “product” to fill them with. While I do not see the end of protectionist policies aimed at guaranteeing a significant portion of Chinese screens be reserved for local films, it is hard to imagine a scenario where Hollywood access to this growing market would not incrementally increase over time, although the gains might still fall short of Hollywood studio expectations.

Current discussions about reforming the system also involve talk of allowing more foreign art house films into the market, which will be important for re-balancing the currently commercially dominated industry.

MB: One big change is that just over a decade ago, the “China market” barely figured into most Hollywood studios’ thinking. China was an afterthought for Hollywood—neither side had much experience dealing with the other and their relationship was laden with misunderstandings, arrogance, and a general lack of engagement. Today the two industries are so intricately intertwined that one cannot exist without the other. Most Hollywood blockbusters need the Chinese market in order to make a profit. This is a fact that can be seen not only through co-productions and “Chinese elements” injected into films like “Transformers 4” or “Iron Man 3,” but also in casting choices, issues of cultural sensitivity when it comes to basic content approval. Whether or not a given blockbuster film gets the green light from a studio is now as much reliant on Chinese box office projections and how the film will play to Chinese audiences as it is to American ones. Take for example the Hollywood film “Warcraft,” which did not perform well in the U.S. market, but became a blockbuster in China and there is now talk of a sequel based entirely upon the film’s performance in the Chinese market. At the same time, Chinese studios and production company’s have increasingly made Hollywood’s business their business (recent “Hollywood” productions like “Southpaw,” “Hardcore Henry,” and “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation” were all co-financed by Chinese production companies). So the ease of doing business works both ways. Part of the improvement in business relations also comes from Hollywood finally learning the rules of the game. No one is making films like “Red Corner” or “Kundun” anymore—films that the CCP would view as antagonistic—Hollywood studios have learned how to self-censor just as well as their Chinese film counterparts because they know how much is financially riding on maintaining a good relationship with their Chinese counterparts.

]]>194809Marvel Character Rewritten to Appease China [Updated]http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2016/04/tibetan-marvel-character-whitewashed-appease-china/
Wed, 27 Apr 2016 02:00:52 +0000http://chinadigitaltimes.net/?p=193453Two growing complaints against Hollywood—that it bows to China to secure access to its audiences, and “whitewashes” Asian roles—collided last week in an interview with “Doctor Strange” writer C. Robert Cargill. The forthcoming Marvel film has come under fire for the casting of British actor Tilda Swinton as “the Ancient One,” originally a 500-year old Tibetan sorcerer.

Swinton herself recently defended the decision, saying that in the film version, “it’s not actually an Asian character.” An official statement from Marvel elaborated that “the Ancient One is a title that is not exclusively held by any one character, but rather a moniker passed down through time, and in this particular film the embodiment is Celtic.” (The setting in which she appears in the trailer, though, looks more Himalayan than Scottish Highland.) Cargill—who noted that the decision on how to handle the character predated his own involvement in the film—went into further detail at DoubleToasted.com. He argued that “every single decision that involves the Ancient One is a bad one,” and “there is no other character in Marvel history that is such a cultural landmine and is absolutely unwinnable. […] Just like the Kobayashi Maru, it all comes down onto which way you’re willing to lose” Among the losses the studio reportedly refused to endure was alienating Chinese authorities and audiences:

The Ancient One […] comes from a region of the world that is in a very weird political place. He originates from Tibet, so if you acknowledge that Tibet is a place and he’s Tibetan, you risk alienating one billion people who think that that’s bullshit, and risk the Chinese government going, “Hey, you know one of the biggest film-watching countries in the world? We’re not going to show your movie because you decided to get political.”

Cargill’s reasoning is somewhat vague, perhaps in a further effort to tread lightly around Chinese sensitivities. The depiction of a Tibetan Ancient One within Tibet should not, in itself, have been provocative. The more sensitive issue would have been whether Tibet was depicted as Chinese territory, which the filmmakers could have chosen to leave ambiguous. If Chinese regulators had then demanded explicit recognition of the country’s territorial claim, however, Marvel would have been forced to either step on a far bigger political landmine than whitewashing, or else lose access to its largest market by far outside the United States. The interweaving of films in the franchise—12 to date, with at least 10 more on the way—could multiply the financial stakes. The latest Avengers movie, “Age of Ultron,” made $240 million in China alone, nearly a fifth of its global total.

Carefully vague though it may have been, Cargill’s explanation has antagonized some on Chinese social media. “Whitewashing is your business. Chinese consumers will not be scapegoated,” one retorted on Sina Weibo. “Are you kidding me?” asked another “This way of shirking responsibility is just too ridiculous.” “The excuse you are making is strange and wonderful,” added a third. “I can only do what I modestly can to decrease the box office results.”

Ensuring the film’s place in front of Chinese audiences was only one concern, Cargill continued. Others sprang from the project’s 50-year-old source material. The Ancient One, he argued, is “a racist stereotype,” concocted in the early ’60s by white American authors. The story in which the character is embedded reflects a similarly dated political outlook. Moreover, he added, some critics’ well-intended casting suggestions would only have inflamed the political sensitivities:

[…] The thing that makes me pull my hair out is, you know, some people are like, “well, why not cast Michelle Yeoh.” Well first of all, I’m like, Michelle Yeoh is awesome. I would love to make a film with Michelle Yeoh. If you are telling me that you think it’s a good idea to cast a Chinese actress as a Tibetan character, you are out of your damn fool mind and have no idea what the fuck you’re talking about.

[…] If we just kind of used a Tibetan actor and it was still an Ancient One but it was much less racist … or hopefully not racist at all … well, that’s the hope … people would still be “oh, it’s another ‘white guy goes to the Orient, adopts their ways and then comes back and is the great white hero’ story, it’s ‘Avatar’ all over again, it’s ‘The Last Samurai’ all over again,” so you’re going to get dinged on that. […]

And the thing is, and this needs to be said, is no disrespect to anyone (except the idiots out there who are going “this is the only way to do it”) … but everyone has the right to be upset, because the fact that this even exists, the fact that there’s a problem, that Marvel has a character like that who’s fallen into a weird place … […] It’s a really, really ugly piece of history that we wish there was an easy solution to, and there wasn’t one. [Source]

Updated at 11:46 PDT on Apr 28, 2016: Cargill had stated on Twitter that these arguments were his own, not Marvel’s:

CLARIFICATION: that interview answer going around was to a question from a fan specifically about MY JUSTIFICATION, not Marvel's.

[…] Those original statements were my own personal musings about a character, and although I worked on the film script, I came to the project after the first draft and was not part of any casting discussions or decisions so I had no right or knowledge to speak about them as if I was. It was a moronic decision, and worst of all, I embarrassed my friends and colleagues by coming across as if I were speaking for them. I was not. [Source]

Chinese film company Perfect World Pictures Co Ltd (002624.SZ) will invest $250 million into a slate of Universal Pictures movies, extending the tie-ups between China and Hollywood, as the world’s second largest economy sees its box office soar.

The Chinese firm will help fund at least 50 Universal Pictures films over a five-year period through its Perfect Universe Investment Inc investment unit, the company said in a regulatory filing on Wednesday.

Universal Pictures, owned by Comcast Corp (CMCSA.O), is the studio behind blockbusters such as “Jurassic World” and “Fast and Furious”, the latest installment which is one of China’s biggest-ever grossing films.

Perfect World said the investment gives them a “direct link” into one of the biggest Hollywood studios, and would help them expand.

The Chinese firm added it would receive a proportion of global ticket sales, television and merchandising revenues for the films it funded. [Source]

Financial terms were not disclosed, but sources close to the deal told The Hollywood Reporter in January that Perfect World would be making an investment of $250 million in equity and plans to raise between $200-$250 million in debt. Perfect World is understood to be getting a 25 percent share of most, but not all, of the films released by Universal. Specific film titles included in the deal will be announced at a later date, the partners said Wednesday in a statement.

[…] “We are delighted to be partnering with Perfect World and appreciate the confidence it has in our film slates going forward after a record-breaking 2015,” said Jeff Shell, chairman of Universal Filmed Entertainment Group. “With Perfect World’s history of success in the Chinese market, we look forward to exploring other opportunities to work together.”

Added Michael Chi, chairman of Perfect World: “Building out our film business and expanding into international markets are two of the most important initiatives for Perfect World. Universal has had a stellar last few years, and with a slate that boasts many titles that we know will thrive in the marketplace, we are confident our partnership with them is a solid step in the right direction. Our partnership with Universal is not just about making movies together, but also about the opportunities that exist in the synergy across our multiple business lines to maximize strategic value for all involved.” [Source]

Chinese companies are ramping up investment in the foreign entertainment industry, as the country seeks to boost its “soft power”. Foreign studios are keen to expand into China’s fast-growing cinema market, now the second-largest in the world.

In January, Chinese conglomerate Wanda Group signed a US$3.5 billion deal to buy Hollywood studio Legendary Entertainment, said to be China’s biggest-ever cultural takeover.

In September, private equity firm China Media Capital unveiled a venture with US entertainment giant Warner Bros. to develop films. State-backed Hunan TV last year also announced a US$1.5 billion agreement to fund the movies of US studio Lionsgate. [Source]

]]>191524Dalian Wanda Sets Its Sights on Hollywoodhttp://chinadigitaltimes.net/2016/01/dalian-wanda-sets-its-sights-on-hollywood/
Thu, 07 Jan 2016 04:45:57 +0000http://chinadigitaltimes.net/?p=189792China’s real estate and investment firm Dalian Wanda Group, which controls AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc. and is the largest cinema chain operator in the world, is close to finishing a deal to acquire a majority stake in Legendary Entertainment, a Hollywood production company currently valued at $4 billion. The pending deal is the latest development in a rapidly evolving China-Hollywood connection. Laurie Burkitt and Ben Fritz at The Wall Street Journal report:

Chinese real-estate and entertainment conglomerate Dalian Wanda Group Co. is moving toward completing a deal for a majority stake in Legendary Entertainment that would value the U.S. film and television company at nearly $4 billion, according to people close to the transaction. A deal’s announcement could come as early as next week in China, one of those people said.

If completed, a deal would make Wanda the first Chinese owner of a major Hollywood production and finance company and move China closer to its goal of becoming a global film powerhouse. It also shows Wanda’s broader ambitions amid a Chinese rush to grab entertainment content to show to quickly growing audiences at the movies and online.

Industry experts say the deal makes sense for both Wanda and Legendary, which tends to produce the type of big-budget, special-effects-driven movies that Chinese audiences like. In addition to owning AMC, Wanda controls the biggest cinema chain in China, where box-office receipts are set to eclipse the North American market in coming years. Wanda, a company owned by Wang Jianlin, China’s richest man, can provide Mr. Tull with money, a growing audience and a champion in China that can get more of his films into the tightly controlled market.

“Wanda represents a good source of funding for him,” Peter Schloss, managing partner of CastleHill Partners, a merchant bank specializing in the media and sports industries, said by telephone from Beijing. “Wanda likes the deal because it segues into the approach that they are using to build themselves into a multifaceted entertainment conglomerate.”

[…] Wanda’s investment also makes sense politically for its chairman, Mr. Wang, a former military officer who is carrying out the Communist Party’s goal of deepening China’s influence in the global entertainment industry. As many of China’s most powerful families, including relatives of President Xi Jinping, have bought shares in Wanda, the Legendary purchase furthers Mr. Wang’s importance to the country’s political elite at a time when some of the country’s richest businessmen are falling victim to Mr. Xi’s anticorruption campaign, now entering its fourth year. [Source]

Ever since late 2014, when Ma announced his ambition for Alibaba to become the “world’s biggest entertainment company,” the e-commerce giant has been kicking the tires on every major studio and Hollywood independent. He met with executives at Lionsgate, Disney, Paramount, Warner Bros., Sony and Universal that year to secure distribution rights and possible investments.

Most recently, there have been rumors of a possible investment in Paramount, following Alibaba’s financing of Mission Impossible — Rogue Nation last year. The film made $137 million in China, in part helped by a strong marketing effort by Alibaba.

“When there’s smoke, there’s usually fire, but given the Redstone family issues, I believe it’s unlikely for Alibaba to buy into Paramount,” says Peter Schloss, CEO of CastleHill Partners, a Beijing-based merchant bank specializing in media and sports industries. “I do, however, believe Alibaba and Jack Ma will eventually make a move on a studio or independent, so Wang Jianlin doesn’t steal their thunder.” [Source]

The film’s boxing day premiere marks the latest chapter in an attempt by the president, Xi Jinping, to stamp his mark on the Chinese arts.

[…]A culture ministry official told state media that the phenomenon was directly linked to “the artistic development plan of the party, the future of China’s art and who art should really serve”.

Xinhua said: “The 3D opera embodies the spirit of remarks by Xi Jinping … on socialist literature and art, emphasising the people-oriented concept in the production of artistic works.”

Underscoring the president’s ties to the project, China’s first lady, the soprano Peng Liyuan , “took time off her busy schedule to look over the play and provided valuable advice for its modification”, Xinhua added.

Her husband’s blueprint for the arts has sent shivers down the spines of many artists and writers, who fear the determination to focus only on the positive and the patriotic spells doom for their trade. […] [Source]

]]>189612China Betting Billions on English-Language Filmshttp://chinadigitaltimes.net/2015/11/china-betting-billions-on-english-language-films/
Thu, 12 Nov 2015 01:17:14 +0000http://chinadigitaltimes.net/?p=188376As China’s growing population of film-goers continue to spend at the box office on hit English-language films produced in Hollywood, Jonathan Landreth at ChinaFile notes that there is much less popular demand for tickets to Chinese-language films abroad, the demand that does exist limited largely to the overseas Chinese-speaking community:

Though Hollywood studio films are making greater returns than ever at China’s box office—despite imports being limited to 34 each year—market forces pigeonhole screenings of Chinese-language films from the People’s Republic into a small but growing group of U.S. theaters that dedicate a few screens to serving an audience made up almost exclusively of diaspora Chinese and Chinese students studying abroad.

[…] For all the hype about boom times in China’s movie marketplace—the box office in the first half of this year soared nearly 50 percent over the first six months of 2014—China can’t seem to land a single hit in what is still the largest theatergoing movie market in the world: the U.S. of A.

[…] It’s not that today’s Chinese filmmakers aren’t getting lots of attention and winning prizes at international film festivals; or that they’re not making mainstream movies that blow up big at home; or that Chinese audiences don’t know what they want—they are and they do. Consider recent high praise for Jia Zhangke at Cannes and the New York Film Festival for Mountains May Depart and, before that, A Touch of Sin, and the glowing reviews for Zhang Yimou’s latest picture, Coming Home. On the commercial front, Goodbye Mr. Loser, the comedy dominating the box office in China for weeks, has grossed $226 million since opening domestically on September 30.

[…] It may be a while before mainstream U.S. moviegoers on the coasts (let alone middle America, or the average Briton) flock to see films in Chinese with English subtitles, even if Chinese studios increasingly approximate slick Hollywood production values and fast-paced storytelling. [Source]

A series of major deals revealed at AFM, which ran Nov. 4-11 in Santa Monica, show Chinese media companies moving from a Sino-focused approach — buying films for the Chinese market, doing Chinese-U.S. co-productions — to a global one by investing directly in English-language features, both studio-driven and independent.

Le Vision Pictures, the L.A.-based offshoot of the Chinese production giant, signed a six-picture development deal with Dark Horse Comics (Sin City, Hellboy) to adapt hit Chinese graphic novels into English books and features. Chinese studio Bona Film Group announced a $235 million investment in film financier The Seelig Group, a move that will make Bona an equity player on six live-action tentpoles from 20th Century Fox, including Matt Damon’s hit The Martian. On Nov. 4, Beijing media mogul Bruno Wu unveiled a $1.6 billion fund for English-language, mainly Hollywood-based projects that will be run by Wu’s Sun Seven Stars entertainment conglomerate and Chinese online financial service platform Yucheng Group.

“Chinese is not, or let’s say not yet, a global language,” says Wu. “If you want to be a global content company, you have to produce content in the English language.”

[…] Previous Chinese investments in Hollywood productions typically involved putting up equity in exchange for Chinese rights — as Le Vision did for two Expendables movies. This new wave of Chinese cash, however, is less about buying U.S. movies for China than it is about being owners of original IP. According to Roy Salter, senior media advisor at FTI Consulting, that makes the Chinese film-financ­ing boom “substantially different” from previous cycles of outside investment in Hollywood, like the German bubble of the late 1990s or the private-equity boom that fizzled with the crisis of 2008. […] [Source]

There was no explanation offered for why the transcript of Xi’s speech, which called on artists to serve the people and be consistent with communist thinking, took so long to be published. At the time, Chinese intellectuals fearfully pointed out that it resembled Chairman Mao Zedong’s talk on the political function of the arts at the Yan’an Forum on Literature and Art in 1942, a speech that marked the beginning of the Rectification Movement, a campaign within the Chinese Communist Party for turning the liberal and independent Chinese intellectuals into party mouthpieces. It also took more than a year for the full text of Mao’s speech to be officially published on party mouthpiece, Jiefang Daily.

[…] No wonder some analysts said the speech, apart from being a revival of Maoist ideology, is an attempt to burnish Xi’s image as a new cultured type of Chinese leader, rather than a traditionally rigid communist party leader.

Though direct criticism of the speech could not be found online, attentive readers can still find some subtle reminders of the brutal repression of intellectual thought throughout Chinese contemporary history. […] [Source]

Xi’s speech serves as a potent reminder that the control of arts and culture remain in the forefront of the Chinese leadership’s minds, and that whatever freedoms have been gained through market reform are still subject to control. The speech would have been widely circulated among the official cultural organizations that sent representative to last year’s forum, including the China Film Association.

Mao, along with Lenin and Marx, are quoted in the speech. Mao’s calls for “revolution” are replaced by Xi’s emphasis on “rejuvenation” or “restoration.” The arts no longer need to serve the purpose of socialist revolution, but rather the restoration of Chinese culture as a global force able to hold its own with the rest of the world, particularly the United States. Xi acknowledges that the trend of globalization in the arts cannot be reversed, but asserts that, at least within China it can be managed and controlled.

Xi’s words should embolden those who aim to fill Chinese media outlets with patriotic content, such as the producers of an upcoming 45-episode television series depicting life in the rural Chinese village where the Chinese president spent much of the Cultural Revolution. As illustrated in the case of recent allegations of fraud in ticketing practices to favor a homegrown patriotic war film over a Hollywood import, market-driven entertainment may find itself losing out when nationalistic content takes precedence. In a similar vein, the Chinese president’s speech could pave the way for new restrictions on imports of foreign entertainment in China.

Below, we’ve translated a selection of passages from Xi’s speech which could have a particular bearing on Hollywood’s role in China. […] [Source]

Meanwhile, as China’s domestic film industry grows, Beijing is hoping that international interest in Chinese produced films could become part of its soft power strategy. Amid these trends, there has been an increase in China-Hollywood co-production agreements. CCTV America talks to Peter Shiao, founder of Orb Media Group—an L.A.-based firm that facilitates joint film production, financing, and marketing—about the future of increased China-Hollywood cooperation:

[…] “China is trying to learn why Hollywood is so successful,” says Stanley Rosen, a University of Southern California political science professor who studies the relationship between the mainland and the U.S. film industry. China, he says, wants to master the business “from the bottom up.”

Hollywood is happy to help. It needs the cash plus access to theaters in China, where the government limits the number of imported movies and controls how they are released. Such connections are crucial since China, projected to overtake the U.S. in box-office receipts by 2020, accounted for most of the growth in global movie ticket sales last year.

Over the past year, U.S. studios “are going to these big companies with single pictures and saying, ‘Would you like to invest?’ ” says Robert Cain, a partner at Pacific Bridge Pictures, a film producer and consultant. “They’re investing because the opportunity is now being presented, and that’s only a recent phenomenon.”

[…] Cain says China’s government is able to use its control over its lucrative home market to influence U.S. studios and exert soft power—the kind of cultural influence that’s made Hollywood a global ambassador for America. China Film invested in The Great Wall, a thriller starring Matt Damon and Willem Dafoe about an elite force making a last stand for humanity on China’s snaking barrier. It’s targeted for a November 2016 release by Universal. Says Cain: “On a broad scale, China is steadily gaining more and more influence in Hollywood, and you won’t see a Chinese villain probably ever again in a Hollywood movie.” [Source]

Despite the mutual benefits, co-production also comes with a host of challenges. Last month, the Los Angeles Times’ Richard Verrier reported on some notable film deals that unravelled:

While the entertainment industry eyes China as a source of capital and customers, interests there often approach the relationship with a very different agenda, according to studio executives and others who have sought partnerships in China.

Some investors are more interested in appearing to be in business with Hollywood than in putting serious money into deals, these people say — to boost their stock prices or profiles. (American studios also like to be seen to be doing deals in China.)

In other cases, entertainment industry leaders say, Chinese companies are looking to learn strategies and techniques to make their own film industry a stronger competitor.

[…] Whatever the reasons, Hollywood executives have learned to greet news of a partnership with China with a healthy degree of skepticism.

Despite deepening ties with Hollywood, China may not be ready to scrap an unpopular quota that restricts the number of foreign movies it allows into the country.

[…] “There seems to be an assumption that the quota would be lifted in 2017,” said Aynne Kokas, a professor and China expert at the University of Virginia. “It doesn’t seem like there is as much movement as that.”

[…] “We have this symbiotic relationship,” Kokas said. “How long the mutual accommodation will last is uncertain…. I see growth in the Chinese media and entertainment industry and not necessarily the parallel growth in Hollywood.”

Although the Chinese government wants to expand its cultural industries, including film, it remains wary of Western culture. Yet Chinese producers need Hollywood know-how to make movies that can do well globally, not just in China. […] [Source]

The emails leaked from Sony Pictures in 2014 show, on La’s accession, the studio circulating a full briefing on the man to whom Hollywood now goes, cap in hand, to ensure its blockbusters gain entry to a box-office goldmine that has grown at least 30% year-on-year since 2010. Sitting with a translator and I in a spot outside the men’s toilets where we’ve sought refuge from the business scrum, La is quick to extend a hand to the studios: “Our government has introduced a lot of helpful policies so we can cooperate with film companies in the west and elsewhere.” He waits, with practised rhythm, for his translator to finish, then resumes. “We’re more open than in the past.”

Not open enough to respond later to my email about why China Film Co last month allegedly manipulated box-office receipts for its war movie Hundred Regiments Offensive. If the charge is true, it represents the kind of old-school communist book-cooking that a thriving film industry shouldn’t need. But the allegations highlight a wider issue: the ability of transitioning Chinese cinema to hold its own against foreign competitors (the government still enforces a summer blackout period on Hollywood films). Along with his unflappable bureaucrat’s mien, La says he differs from his predecessor in another respect: “In the past, we focused a lot on how many films we produced a year. But right now we’re trying to increase their artistic quality.”

But isn’t the government’s own censorship system – requiring scripts to be vetted for depictions of sex, violence or anything deemed damaging to national morale – one of the biggest obstacles to that? The translator laughs nervously as he puts that over, but Chairman La doesn’t blink. “The government tries to help our market grow, not put hurdles on the road of increasing quality. Actually, we are open to different genres and topics, but not stories that challenge our society or our law system.” […] [Source]

China’s government chooses which movies can be shown in what is now the world’s second-biggest cinema market, so many filmmakers have to think more carefully about how to attract Chinese audiences and not offend the country’s censors, according to scholars and theater owners.

Unlike the United States, China doesn’t have a movie-rating system. So the government relies on censors at the State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television of the People’s Republic of China — SAPPRFT — to block content it deems offensive for general audiences. What officials find offensive can extend beyond sex, violence and foul language to politics, culture and portrayals of China.

[…] In recent years, foreign filmmakers have also gone out of their way not to provoke the Communist Party. For instance, the 2012 remake of the Cold War action movie, Red Dawn, originally featured Chinese soldiers invading an American town. After filming was complete, though, the moviemakers went back and turned the attacking army into North Koreans, which seemed a safer target, at least until last year’s hack of Sony Pictures. […] [Source]

The billion dollar box office mark isn’t so much a magic number that guarantees profitability as it is a sort of symbolic Hollywood holy grail. After all, with more than half the box office receipts going to theater owners, and as much as a half billion dollars in production expenditures and global marketing costs, most studio blockbuster films rely far more on home video, digital distribution and TV sales than they rely on box office to break into the black. The billion dollar figure is important mainly because it offers the promise of big box office bonuses to the filmmakers and studio executives behind such successes, and bragging rights for everyone involved. If Hollywood gave out platinum records the way the music industry does, they would undoubtedly go to the producers of billion dollar bonanza movies.

Until recently, before its modern day cinema boom started, China mattered little in such affairs, because it accounted for only a negligible share of global cinema revenue. But since 2011, when it emerged as Hollywood’s most important overseas box office territory, China has played an increasingly essential role as kingmaker for those films aiming for the rarefied billion dollar threshold. And more often than not in recent years the major Hollywood studios’ key objective has been to generate films that cross that ten-figure threshold.

Of the 12 films that have reached billionaire box office status since 2011, half wouldn’t have gotten there without China’s ticket sales. The two most recent Transformers films, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, the Jurassic Park re-release and now Avengers: Age of Ultron all made it over the top thanks to China’s movie-going audiences. […] [Source]

Guo Xuebo, a member of the China Writers Association, said on his microblog last Wednesday that wolves had never been an emblematic animal for Mongolians.

“Wolves have never been the totem of Mongolians, and there’s no record of any wolf totem in Mongolian literature or history,” Guo wrote.

“The wolf is the natural enemy in the lives of Mongolians, and wolves have no team spirit and often fight each other.”

[…] Guo also said that a senior ethnic Mongolian writer complained about the book when it was first published, but “our voices were so weak compared with the interest group formed by Wolf Totem”. [Source]

“The idea that a story many viewed as critical of the Chinese government would be directed by a foreigner who had previously made a film that criticized China’s policies is rather astonishing,” Rob Cain, who runs Chinafilmbiz.com, a blog about China’s film industry, wrote in an e-mail. But in this case, Mr. Cain said, Mr. Annaud’s directorial experience and technical expertise may have superseded his past actions. “China’s film industry is awash in cash, hungry for success, and eager to partner with people who possess know-how and international access,” Mr. Cain added.

In an interview, Mr. Annaud acknowledged that he, too, was taken aback when representatives of the Beijing Forbidden City production company approached him at his office in Paris. He said the producers told him: “China has changed and we are practical people. We don’t know how to do what you do and we need you.” [Source]

]]>181593Hollywood’s Disappearing Chinese Moneyhttp://chinadigitaltimes.net/2015/02/hollywoods-disappearing-chinese-money/
Thu, 26 Feb 2015 00:07:28 +0000http://chinadigitaltimes.net/?p=181588At the Academy Awards on Sunday, singer John Legend and hip hop artist Common won the Oscar for best original song with ‘Glory,’ from civil rights drama ‘Selma.’ In his acceptance speech, Common cited a shared spirit joining the civil rights movement in the U.S., demonstrations in support of free speech following the Charlie Hebdo attack in France on January 7th, and the pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong late last year.

Residents in the former British colony of Hong Kong were listening, as were their neighbors in mainland China, which now exerts sovereignty over the city. The online reaction that’s ensued signals a continuing divide between Hong Kong’s democracy advocates, who believe Beijing is unfairly interfering with Hong Kong elections, and mainland Chinese residents, many of whom strongly oppose the pro-democracy movement, remain suspicious of Western meddling in Hong Kong, and consider protesters there “spoiled” for demanding rights mainland Chinese don’t enjoy.

[…] On Weibo, a major social media platform in mainland China, criticism of Common’s speech has been fierce. “You sing some crappy song and then think you stand at the moral heights and understand everything,” one popular comment read. Another user wrote, “His supporting Hong Kong occupiers is free speech, and my calling him an idiot is also free speech.” Curse words and racial epithets were also in plentiful supply, prompting several to express disgust with what one called the lack of “public wisdom” online. [Source]

There are, with a cold eye, probably only two meaningful deals involving Chinese investment in the U.S. industry — and both are exceptions.

[…] The Chinese, according to a film executive who has had significant dealings with Chinese investors, “like to have a meeting, take a picture, issue a press release. Then they think hard about the deal, quite often losing enthusiasm for it. They call it caution. We call it reneging.” (Curiously, Hollywood, with its long history of now-you-see-it-now-you-don’t financing, nonetheless has seemed perplexed by vaporizing Chinese money.) “Everything can look and feel like you’re having a meeting and you’re talking to CAA,” adds the exec. “You forget it’s a communist country, that these companies are not entirely free to do whatever they want — that money doesn’t leave China without somebody up there saying so.”

[…] Hollywood often has opened its arms to outside investors who must pay to enter the club. The Chinese, however, are in a significantly different position because Hollywood wants to enter China. The Chinese box office soon will rival the size of the U.S. box office. When an American movie works there, it works at a Transformers-like level. At the same time, much of this potential is out of reach for U.S. studios without a Chinese partner. Lots of movies can go into China for a flat fee, but if you want a better cut of the box office, you need government approval — that is, a nod from SAPPRFT, the state agency that sanctions Chinese co-productions. U.S. film executives have chosen to ignore China’s dismal record on human and media rights (even as those same execs stand up for creative freedoms in the Sony hack and Charlie Hebdo tragedies), all chasing the promise of a financial savior. [Source]